The Crimson White Print Edition - February 29th, 2024

4A
news
Lawmakers push to cut DEI initiatives across Alabama
Kay Maxwell
Race and Identity Reporter
Assistant Writing Editor, Nineteen Fifty-Six
Emma Brandenburg
Contributing Writer, The Crimson White
Alabama is one of 20 states
considering restrictions
on diversity, equity and
inclusion initiatives in this
year’s spring
legislative sessions.
Republican-led legislatures
around the country are
considering several bills
this year that would
regulate divisive concepts
in government institutions,
cut state-sanctioned DEI
programs and prohibit
discussion of so-called
divisive concepts in
the classroom.
In 2023, the legislation was
approved 9-3 in a committee
of the state House but failed
to pass in the Senate.
This legislative session,
however, Republican
lawmakers have decided to
take a different route. On
Wednesday, Sen. Will Barfoot,
R-Pike Road, introduced a
revised version of the divisive
concepts bill, Senate Bill
129, in front of the Senate. A
revised version has passed in
the Senate and now awaits a
vote in the state House.
This is the third
consecutive year that
Alabama Republicans have
proposed restrictions on
DEI initiatives. In 2022 and
2023, state Rep. Ed Oliver,
R-Dadeville, introduced
legislation banning the
promotion of “certain
concepts” related to race, sex
and religion in public schools
and universities.
Students and faculty have
begun to question how the
University will adapt the
legislation if passed. Richard
Fording, a political science
professor, believes that the
legislation being debated at
all is concerning.
“I think it’s awful,” he
said. “I think this is part of a
national movement coming
from the right and the
Republican party, and a lot
of it is based in ignorance as
well as some intolerance.”
According to the original
version of SB 129, divisive
concepts are defined to
include, for instance, the
belief that any race, color,
religion or national origin
is inherently inferior or
superior; the assignment
of worth, morality and
oppression based on race;
and assertions that slavery
and racism are aligned with
the founding principles of the
United States.
The legislation would also
prevent students from using
a bathroom that does not
align with the sex they were
assigned at birth.
Additionally, the bill would
prohibit public entities from
maintaining DEI offices and
sponsoring DEI programs.
The section about
discussion of slavery and U.S.
history has been removed
from the version of the bill
that passed, and some Title IX
protections have been added
as well.
The bill clarified that
it will not prohibit state
agencies from promoting
“racial, cultural and ethnical
inclusiveness,” so long as
state agencies do so in a
way that complies with the
bill; prohibit the teaching of
The Intercultural Diversity Center on the second floor of the Student Center. CW / Riley Thompson
topics or historical events in a
historically accurate context;
or bar student, faculty and
staff organizations from
hosting DEI programs or
holding discussions about
divisive topics.
However, these
organizations may not use
state funds to hold these
events, and they must
identify the sponsors of these
events at the event and in its
advertisements.
Oliver believes that the
changes made to the bill
will benefit college students
statewide.
“I think the farther we
move away from DEI, the
more it will help students in
general. We would like to be
about two years ahead of a
fad if we could,” Oliver said.
“All of the things that are hotbutton
issues we see today,
post George Floyd, will start to
dissipate within the next year
or two. That’s just the way
things flow.”
Kiana Younker, a master’s
student in theater with
a concentration in arts
management, believes that if
passed, the banning of statefunded
DEI initiatives could
harm minority students.
“This would be an
incredibly dangerous initiative
that jeopardizes the safety of
not only BIPOC individuals on
campus but also LGBTQIA+
and international student
programs,” Younker said.
“Some majors might cease to
exist under that legislation.”
Fording said that
this all stems from a
misunderstanding about
what DEI is.
“There are a lot of
exaggerated claims about
what it is that DEI means,”
Fording said. “There is also
misinformation about what
critical race theory means,
and this whole idea of
divisive concepts. It’s just
interesting to me that if we’re
going to be free speech and
freedom of expression, that
should include left and right
at the very least. You can’t
implement it just for
one side.”
Cassandra Simon, an
associate professor in the
School of Social Work,
said the bill reflects a
misinterpretation of higher
education and its purpose.
“The bill, like similar
legislation, is based on narrow
thinking,” Simon said. “I view
it as is a kitchen sink of bias,
fear, misunderstanding and
attempt to control education,
what it entails and how it is
put into practice.”
Bryan Fair, a professor
in the law school, believes
that the University is not
doing enough to combat the
potential legislation.
“If I were the university
president, I would be fighting
for diversity and inclusion
and honoring a principle of
equity,” Fair said. “I would
explain why this university
has a special obligation
to do more than perhaps
other universities in the
country. And I would always
be prepared to go to court
to defend the principle of
fairness and equity and
dismantling systemic racism.”
Fording hopes to hear more
support from administrators
for campus diversity.
“If this legislation passes,
I really hope there will be
more vocal leadership from
the very top of the university
administration to sort of
reaffirm their commitment to
diversity,” Fording said.
Fording questioned the
next steps for the University.
“What can be done about
it?” he asked. “If enough of
us on our campus, students
and faculty, agree that this is
a problem, what can we do
about it?”